|
|
07-13-2007, 04:15 AM | #67 | |
Brigadier General
477
Rep 3,044
Posts
Drives: 2011 Dakar Yellow M3, 2018 M5
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orange County, California
|
struck me as odd
Quote:
this also confused me. bmw's posted 0-60 is 4.8 (per everything we've read so far) audi's posted 0-60 is 4.8 (per audiusa.com) so why is autoexpress publishing audi's 0-60 as 4.7, and bmw's as as 4.8? are they saying that these are real world test numbers? i don't buy it, for so several reasons: 1) member steved has already posited that the review period wasn't sufficient in length to make for ample performance testing. 2) bmw is at this point notorious for understating power and 0-60 stats. case and point - BMW advertises the outgoing M3 as making 0-60 in 5.1/5.2 seconds, but real world tests say otherwise, bringing the car in at 4.8/4.9 seconds. The new 335i finds itself in almost the exact same position. bmw has followed this trend faithfully and there's no reason to believe otherwise for the incoming M3. if the past is any indicator of the future, then we can fairly expect the new M3 to actually hit 60mph in something more along the lines of 4.5/4.6seconds instead of the advertised 4.8 seconds. and with M-DCT on board, a 4.4 figure wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
__________________
[ESS VT2-625] [Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust] [KW Clubsports] [OSS Angel Eyes] [Revinora r-CRT Lip] [Vorsteiner Boot] [Challenge Race Diffuser] [See the Build Thread HERE] |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 04:47 AM | #68 |
First Lieutenant
20
Rep 325
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 05:06 AM | #69 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
More
+1, exactly. They botched the weight, they botched the "reported" 0-60 times. I'm sure there are other gross/obvious errors there as well. Funny how it is so easy to find such careless/blatant mistakes in all the shit articles and none in the good articles. That is not fan boy-ism it is the clear marks of good journalist and good articles vs. poor one.
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 05:19 AM | #70 | |
Lieutenant
26
Rep 580
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 05:22 AM | #71 | |
Lieutenant
26
Rep 580
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 06:00 AM | #72 |
Private First Class
16
Rep 119
Posts |
I can't imagine there are any people on this board who would truely say either "The M3 is great the RS4 is crap" or "The RS4 is great the M3 is crap".
These are truely both fabulous cars at the top of their game. I think plenty of other cars are crap - but love both of these....why wouldn't you? Why do some make it into one car has to be great and the other one therefore is crap? Makes no sense to me???????????????? |
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 06:36 AM | #73 |
Colonel
795
Rep 2,236
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 06:51 AM | #74 | |
Reincarnated
249
Rep 4,227
Posts |
Quote:
See you on the Audi board. Later.
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 06:54 AM | #75 | |
Lieutenant General
343
Rep 16,407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 08:09 AM | #77 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Right on
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 09:35 AM | #79 |
Private
2
Rep 85
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 09:51 AM | #80 | |
Second Lieutenant
18
Rep 220
Posts |
Quote:
Otherwise nothing beats the sporty nature of the much simpler Bilstein PSS9. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 10:20 AM | #81 |
Private
0
Rep 66
Posts |
WOOOOW
Looks as though the group from Ingolstadt seem to be a bit nervous.
They should be ! The New M3 will not rival the RS4. The New M3 will rival the R8. Some many new members. . . . is this a new forum record ? |
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 10:33 AM | #82 |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
There is no "theory" here. The system is either active or passive. If Swamps info is correct, in passive mode, EDC sets a specific damping ratio and leaves things alone unless you switch it to a setting other than sport, so you are in control. If you don't like the suspension setting in sport, that's another story, but that can happen with any non-EDC setup as well.
Last edited by lucid; 07-13-2007 at 12:54 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 10:40 AM | #83 |
New Member
0
Rep 7
Posts |
First, off I'd like to thank some of the more mature posters here that are not hell-bent on having a pissing contest of which car is better (my dad can beat up your dad, sound familiar?).
But I think right off the bat from some of these tests its pretty clear to me when the M3 and RS4 face off going down into the canyons (or the track), the winner is going to be the better driver and not the car. We can magazine race all we want but its not going to change that fact. I was pretty surprised by some of these tests the the RS4 is right there with the M3 even though the M3 has the nod in weight distribution and it has RWD working for it. It's amazing Audi made a car that overcame many of the short comings that Audis have always faced. I'm sure as more real track tests come in you will all be happy when the M3 inches out the RS4, however with either one your driving home in a badass car. But to those posters who are hellbent on being better, just remember there is always a vette around the corner thats ready to mop you up. Even the standard C6 vette broke the 8min barrier on the Nürburgring (7.59 I think). |
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 10:42 AM | #84 |
Lieutenant
26
Rep 580
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 10:45 AM | #85 |
Lieutenant General
343
Rep 16,407
Posts |
A stock Vette will mop up most everything at the Ring and that just one from 06-07, let the 08 take a run.
Though in all fairness the Vette is a different car then the RS4 or the M3, it's main purpose is outstanding performance at a more than reasonable cost for that level of performance, it is a 2 seat performance car period. The RS4 and M3's are a blend of seating and high performance at a slightly higher price point. The Vette doesn't consider those cars as competitors and vice versa, different cars for different things. |
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 10:47 AM | #86 |
Lieutenant
26
Rep 580
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 11:06 AM | #87 | |
New Member
0
Rep 7
Posts |
Yes and no... I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people cross shop the vette and the M3. If performance is everything the vette is cheaper, but none of us drive vettes and for our good reasons. But the similarities between the vette and m3 coupe are far more then the differences (back seats). The 911 S is a totally different class of car too, but if the m3 indeed beats its ring time I'm sure there will be no shortage of punters claiming the superiority of the m3.
Anyways, I think maybe the expectations were too high for the M3 and maybe thats why the media so far has been somewhat critical. But I have a feeling its going to be an awesome car and I can't wait to drive one. Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-13-2007, 11:45 AM | #88 | |
Second Lieutenant
3
Rep 256
Posts |
Quote:
the sport auto laptime is 8:15 for the standard vette: 8:15 --- 149.818 km/h -- Corvette C6, 404 PS/1491 kg (sport auto 08/05), 8:15* -- 149.818 km/h -- Holden GTS (00), *estimated there is another laptime for the z51 packaged c6 vette but it's not a sport auto time so it's about as valid as getting hans stuck to drive the e92 M3 around the nurburgring: 7:59* -- 154.822 km/h -- Chevrolet C6 Z51, company test driver Dave Hill (*mfr.) the competition for the c6 z06, etc. will come with the e92 M3 CSL. the e46 M3 CSL managed to drop 32 seconds on its nurburgring laptime compared to the standard e46 M3: 8:22 --- 147.749 km/h -- BMW M3 E46, 343 PS/1584 kg (sport auto 12/00) 7:50 --- 157.787 km/h -- BMW E46 M3 CSL, 360 PS/1421 kg (sport auto 08/03) now i'm not saying the e92 M3 CSL will have the same 32 second difference with the non-CSL e92 M3, but the non-CSL e92 M3 has already proven that it's faster than the e46 M3 CSL in a straight line: e46 M3 CSL: 16.1s e92 M3: 15.8s and braking performance is the same: e46 M3 CSL: 100km/h - 0: 34m e92 M3: 100km/h - 0:34m so with that stated i think we can definitely assume that the e92 M3 CSL will pull an even better time around the nurburgring than the e46 M3 CSL. somewhere in the 7:4X range would put it head to head with cars like: 7:40 --- 161.217 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05) 7:40* -- 161.217 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1655 kg (AutoBild sportscars 01/07) *mfr., company test driver Giorgio Sanna 7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 07/04) 7:40* -- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1495 kg, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/03) 7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend) 7:41 --- 160.868 km/h -- Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/04), http://www.manthey-motors.de/nextsho...pdf.asp?id=217 7:42* -- 160.519 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/ 1521 kg (*as indicated by Octane magazine, 11/05) 7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa (04) (according to dailysportscar.net) 7:42 --- 160.519 km/h – Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1420 kg (*mfr.) 7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (02) 7:42.9 - 160.207 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 500 PS/1319 kg, Jan Magnusen, (Sporbilen, jun,26 05), http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y...ID=1384471&l=d 7:43 --- 160.173 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Roehrl (MOTOR magazine) 7:43 --- 160.173 km/h -- TechArt Porsche GT Street, 620 PS/1453 kg, (sport auto 08/02) 7:43.5 - 160,000 km/h -- Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine 02) 7:44 --- 159.828 km/h -- Pagani Zonda C12 S, 555 PS/1388 kg (sport auto 07/02) 7:45* -- 159.484 km/h -- Aston Martin V8 Vantage N24, 385 PS/1350 kg (race car, not street-legal, slicks)(*mfr.) 7:45 --- 159.484 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600, 600 PS (00) 7:45* -- 159.484 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg (*mfr.) according to http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...ck-series.html 7:45* -- 159.484 km/h -- McLaren F1, *estimated lap time from a video available at www.pistonheads.tv 7:45*-- 159.484 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/ 1424 kg, worls driver Walter Roehrl, *mfr. 7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT2, 462 PS/1450 kg (sport auto 06/01) 7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- Jaguar XJ220, John Walton (EVO magzine 07/00), www.jwhubbers.nl/ring/docs/evo-0007-7.jpg 7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- SHK Porsche 993 GT2, 652 PS (sport auto 99) 7:47 --- 158.801 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1805 kg (sport auto 01/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=2&tID=111663 7:47* -- 158.801 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/ 1440 kg, works driver Walter Roehrl, *mfr. 7:48 --- 158.463 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1424 kg (sport auto 03/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=2&tID=120285 7:48 --- 158.463 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1440kg (sport auto 07/06) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...ID=2&tID=91836 7:49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 512 PS/1440 kg (sport auto 06/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=0&tID=129099 7:49 --- 158.124 km/h –- BMW X5 Le Mans, 700 PS/~2000 kg, Hans-Joachim Stuck 7.49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3, 392 PS (AutoBild 2004) 7:49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 Cup, 360 PS/1207 kg (sport auto 02/99)
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|